The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Animal rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 78943
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Animals are the ones who save our lives not the other way around. If you EVER learned something new, it will be about how animals can also have emotional attachments. A man raised a lion cub and when the lion grew too old, it had to be kept in a reserve. Later on, the man visited the reserve, saying he wanted to see his old friend. The workers their said that the lion probably won't remember him. But what happened? Oh, yes! The lion, now the alpha of his pack, ran toward the man to nuzzle him! See what I mean? Next...

I am disgusted by the fact that this debate isn't 100% pro. You people should be ashamed of your selves. Sharks only attack around five people a year mistaking us for fish, while we humans kill thousands of them a year by just cutting off their fins for some fancy soup and letting them drown. You'd probably say: "But how can they drown? They're fish! They have GILLS." Well let me tell you something. They have to keep swimming or else they die. Too bad they can't swim without FINS. And what's our excuse for killing them? "They're DANGEROUS". The only five people they attack annually look like fish riding their surfboards. And after that, they swim away. They don't even finish off the humans, knowing that they aren't their proper diet. So the only deaths caused are by the fact that the humans bleed to death before they reach the hospital. Point given. Have you seen this? If not, please do. Our audacity to insult animals has come to point where they save other animals' but we still say that they are vicious cannibals with no respect for others. We take down a birds nest because it was in our way. How would YOU like to see a giant come over, pick up your self made house and throw it away? But even though there are others here to help build you another one, you have to live your whole life fearing that another giant would take it down. I'm just looking at the little bird's perspective here.

What about the big and strong gorilla that looks unstoppable having his tree taken down and was unable to save his FAMILY from the hunters? He'll live the rest of his life regretting every decision he made. Imagine that happening to YOU. You'll probably go into alcohol or commit suicide, but gorillas can't do that so you'll just have to deal with your emotions. That's why they endure a lot more than us, and that just proves that they're superior to humans.

Have you heard of 'putting yourself in someone else's shoes'? Yeah, I want you to try and do that with every animal you can think of that has fallen to humans, okay? I'm known to respect others opinions so if you spot something false in this argument, please tell me.

Oh and by the way, humans ARE animals so if you think they have no rights then you have no right to vote on this debate.

Best regards,
An animal lover <3


Thank you for challenging me to this debate I accept it.

I am personally surprised that I accepted this debate to start with, after reading your open arguments you are clearly blinded by your emotions and you are humanizing animals. I only usually accept debates where the technical aspect of animal rights are challenged not the 'emotional'.

I feel like I could disprove all of your arguments with only one pillar: why can we not make emotional attachments to animals and thus not relate to them in any way?

When I refer to animals I am referring to every member of the animal kingdom except humans.

I would like to start this argument off by saying that you are humanizing animals which is a common mistake that western society makes. It is traceable to a simple mistake: you see animals on different types of medias acting and caring out things that humans do (personifying animals) and over time these thoughts overtake your mind and a person has sentiments for animals. People who actually have to actually work with animals every day (farmers) will tend to see them as they really are: stupid entities that can be eliminated in order to help human beings. Basically what I am saying is that you are being manipulated into thinking that animals are like humans and can carry out human like sentiments. Animals do feel sentiments but only 2 sentiments have been proven to exist: fear and hunger (we say psychopaths have underdeveloped sectors of the brain, hence they feel emotions like animals). Animals have nothing in common with humans in terms of understand and emotions. An animal will do anything for self preservation, it will kill who ever it needs to stay alive, this trait is not found in the average human. Your dog might be cute and it might snuggle up next to you but it is doing this just because you provide it with food and shelter it does not love you in any way, it stays around you because you are a proven protector of it's existence. I have no idea why you feel like you can relate to them, they are not even conscious (to the degree we are).

Let me use a simple example to back these statements up: why do invasive species exist? They exist because if an animal is in another ecosystem where it has no predators it will eat up every other resource until there is nothing left. This trait will ultimately destroy the environment and in turn even the invasive species. It is suicide but why do they do it because they can not do anything else. would humans do the same thing, the answer is no probably not humanity has the ability to correct itself over time and protect it's existence (look at the canadian aboriginals).

Because we are debating animal RIGHTS let me state why it should not exist. Laws were invented to protect humans from other humans. Animals are not humans but they can be used by them in threatening ways. So there must be laws protecting humans from animals (and ecosystems because they aid humans) but there is no need for laws that protect animals from humans.

Animals do not feel pain the way we do. Pain is just an alert telling the brain that something is wrong. SInce humans have advanced we have the capacity to feel pain beyond an alert. Animals have not yet advanced so it is not morally wrong to torture them. When an animal is tortured it does not feel like we do it just gets an alert replayed inside its brain over and over again. There is nothing 'painful' about it, it my cry out but that is just it trying to relate to your moral side and a call for others to hear it there is nothing wrong with ignoring this call.

Finally it is common ignorance to say that we can place ourselves in animals shoes. If you were to do that you would become a robot with no capacity for though or emotion. Going into their shoes would just place you in a state of sleep where you would have no idea what is going on. So it is ok to kill a bird for space.

Let me finish by saying I don't care about sharks they don't care about me, I don't care about that stupid lion who saw a food provider and ran over to see if he still had food or shelter for him (unless it is hanging off of my wall) and I don't care about some gorilla who had his family gunned down because neither does he. But what I do care about is the survival of the human race and animals do have a purpose for that, they provide us with clean air (ecosystems deserve to be protected because they aid the human race), meat, recreational activities (hunting) and they can be used as tools, but I do not care about some stupid 'emotional attachment' which is unproven and does not exist so please to not respond with some 'argument' that includes you trying to relate to animals, please only use facts and numbers (that's all I care about don't let emotions blind you).

Thank you once again and looking forward to ending this debate
Debate Round No. 1


It seems that the only flaw you focused on would be "emotions". Very common for most people debating in fact. But actually, ALL people have emotions for animals. You may think that animals are only 'entities' for food. But I'd just like to clarify that they are more than that. Scientists made an experiment in a hospital. They took two men with a common status in health (meaning neither of them were healthier or more ill) and gave one of them something to take care of. A pet or a plant, leaving the other with nothing to feed, shower, or play with. They monitored them both until one of them felt better (mentally AND physically). Guess which one that was? You know the answer. Pets help us live a healthier lifestyle. We live longer with a dog or cat to care for. We always feel better with pets.

Now, you may think I'm only focusing on pets and not animals in general, but every animal is important (except for wasps. They're spawns of Satan). The food chain would be ruined if one of the carnivores were extinct. Let's take the aquatic food chain as an example:
Shark > Tuna > Smaller fish (sardines etc) > Krill > plankton
This is a simplified version.
Let's say that the last shark in the world died. The tuna population will grow with nothing to keep it at bay (Humans aren't enough). More tuna means more sardines to be eaten. So the sardines are soon hunted to extinction, so the KRILL population grows and so on. I think you got the point.

And again, humans ARE animals so you wouldn't have the right to vote on a debate. How many times do I have to tell you? Ugh, the irony. Many animals are already tortured by unethical cosmetics companies. So the question we should be focusing on shouldn't be "Should animals have rights?" It should be "Should animal testing be legal?" Definitely not from what I know of. I want you to search 'animals getting tested on' and take a look at their pictures. Do they look like they were treated fairly to you? Probably not. They would have matted fur, red and bloody eyes,deep cuts and wounds. You say they shouldn't have rights but torturing them to this extent? That's just unacceptable! If you care for them, at least stop buying products that have been tested on animals so that the company might shut down (that is if enough people boycott it).

What I'm trying to say here is if you don't believe that animals should have rights then fine. I respect your opinion. But they all have importance and shouldn't be treated unfairly. All of them help keep the ecosystem alive so should at least show them some respect, okay.

I'll be busy for a while (you can tell from the length of this argument) so I'm might not be able to reply to your next argument.



I will start of by refuting some of the arguments you made

1. "ALL people have emotions for animals" (Once again when I say animals in this debate it does not include humans) Not every human has emotions for animals. Some humans do not even have emotions so your claim is false. Also some normal functioning humans use the desensitization technique towards animals that makes them completely indifferent. You may find that a large portion of society does not actually care about animals, and those that care will abandon their beliefs if it proves to be convenient (this would leave a very small minority of people that cares about animals, most probably they would be stubborn and have low intelligence).

2. "Pets help us live a healthier lifestyle". False by context, you make it seem as if pets add something to your life, they don't they only offer a human being motivation. Motivation is cheep but pets are not, pets are one of the most inefficient ways to keep up moral and fitness, there are various other replacements that are cheeper and take up less time. For example a man may be motivated through running, he will stay in shape and will keep up good moral. A person with a pet will need to do much more to keep up the pet (by walking and caring for it). In the end although the result is the same the efficiency is not of equal gravity man 1 will have gotten more for his time and money.

3. "The food chain would be ruined if one of the carnivores were extinct." You obviously did not read my second last paragraph of my last point.

4. "And again, humans ARE animals so you wouldn't have the right to vote on a debate. How many times do I have to tell you?" By animals I am not referring to humans only every other member of the animal kingdom (how many times must I repeat this). Humans are more evolved in a conscious and intellectual way and thus are complete separate by my standards and all governments standards (so humanities standard).

5. "I want you to search 'animals getting tested on' and take a look at their pictures. Do they look like they were treated fairly to you?", I am for unregulated animal experimentation (yes that includes testing for commercial uses) . I searched what you told me to search and I can honestly say I did not bat an eye, those animal were advancing society in an intellectual and economical way. I am complete for these two things so in reality the photos made me happy. Let me repeat this I do not care for the animal in testing because it can not care for me and it can not benefit humanity in a intellectual manner (and thus benefit us). The amount of pain it feels is even debatable so I don't really care.

6. "stop buying products that have been tested on animals so that the company might shut down", that hurts actual humans, what about the people who work there, do you not care for them. They are doing something legal so why should they suffer, animals are below us we have no legal obligation to them (we have obligations to ecosystems though). I care for humans and what you are saying harms humans.

7. "they all have importance and shouldn't be treated unfairly. All of them help keep the ecosystem alive", your common household cat does not do enough for the ecosystem for it to be considered 'useful'. I do not care how they are treated nail the cat to a door it makes no difference to me.

Now on to another one of my points: Animal Testing.

Like perviously stated I am for unregulated animal testing, let me elaborate what that means. Unregulated animal testing means that animals can be used as tools in laboratories, the owner can do what ever it likes with them and they can be used for both research and commercial purposes. This will allow the government to drop unwanted 'animal rights' costs and better balance the budget (this is money spent unnecessarily) and it will allow research to flourish. I do not care what circumstances the animal must go through if it is beneficial to the human race (a very broad spectrum) then it fine to do what ever necessary to the animal. If it means the animal must feel exorbitant amounts of pain then it is ok. The animal serves no other purpose to the human race (an animal in a cage in a lab can not benefit the environment) but research. We can not do these things to humans obviously so we need a suitable equivalent. The animal feels pain but not in the way we do so it is not relatable; therefore it is moral to do these experiments. Humans are the supreme species on this planet we must uses our animal cousins to advance ourselves, it is their purpose in our development and it is something that should be unregulated.
Debate Round No. 2


Samaseemo forfeited this round.


So are we not doing a final round, ok I guess we will be judged on only the first 2
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.